HeadsUp: WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO v defendant BARRACK OBAMA, et als, IN: Cal. S. Ct.

SUPREME COURT

October Term, 2008

The People of the State of California on the relation of:

David Allan Herndon

Relator,

Against:

BARACK OBAMA, et als,

Defendant

ART TORRES, DIRECTOR CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY

Defendant/Respondent,

The California Democratic Party,

Defendant/Respondent,

Governor ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

Defendant/Respondent,

California Secretary of State,

DEBRA BOWEN,

Defendant/Respondent,

SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN,

Defendant/Respondent,

FEDERAL ELECTIONS COMMISSION,

Defendant/Respondent,

JOHN AND JANE DOES, 1 THROUGH 50

CASE Number: ____________

RE: CASE No. USDC E.D.Pa. No. 08-4083

WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO

AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

AGAINST: BARACK OBAMA, et als,

FILE ON DEMAND

UNDER EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES

[CCP § 803-811, C.C. § 52, et seq.]

[Cal.Const. 1849, Art. I, Sec. 8]

[Cal.Const. 1849, Art. II, et seq.]

[U.S. Const. 1787, Art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 5]

CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION

CASE OF FIRST IMPRESSION

Time: _____

Date: _____

Dept: _____

Judge:_____

To Chief Justice RONALD M. GEORGE and the ASSOCIATE JUSTICES GREETINGS:

Your relator David Allan Herndon comes before this court in his own proper person under EXIGENT AND SOLEMN CIRCUMSTANCES by right and perfect right to bring WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO against defendant BARACK OBAMA, et als, who in fact, is in overt violation of the Constitution of the State of California 1849 as well as of the Constitution for the United States 1787-1791, as he is usurping a franchise of an elective office to which he is not qualified.

NOTICE OF PRESENTMENT: THIS MATTER COMES BEFORE THIS COURT IN ITS ORIGINAL JURISDICTION AS A CASE OF FIRST IMPRESSION; TO ANSWER A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION IN REGARDS TO DEFENDANT’S BARACK OBAMA, et als, PROPER AND LAWFUL REQUIREMENTS OF FULL, TRUTHFUL AND COMPLETE DISCLOSURE UNDER THE CONSTITUITON FOR THE UNITED STATES, UNDER ART. II, SEC. 1, CLAUSE 5; AND THE CONSTITUTION OF CALIFORNIA 1849, ART. I, SEC. 8; ARTICLE II, et seq.,

Quo Warranto: /kwow wera’entow/. In old English practice, a writ in the nature of a writ of right for the king, against him who claimed or usurped any office, franchise, or liberty, to inquire by what authority he supported his claim, in order to determine the right. It lay also in case of non-user, or long neglect of a franchise, or misuser or abuse of it; being a writ commanding the defendant to show by what warrant he exercises such a franchise, having never had any grant of it, or having forfeited it by neglect or abuse. 3 Bl.Comm. 262.

“Quo Warranto: The writ of quo warranto is an ancient common law, prerogative writ and remedy. Indeed, it is one of the most ancient and important writs known to the common law. The ancient writ was in the nature of a writ of right for the king, against him who claimed or usurped any office, franchise, or liberty, to inquire by what authority he supported his claim, in order to determine the right, or in the case of nonuser, long neglect, misuse, or abuse of franchise, a writ commanding defendant to show by what warrant he exercised such franchise, never having had any grant of it, or having forfeited it by neglect or abuse.

… a quo warranto proceeding is of a public nature, and not a personal action, it being rather an inquisition which the sovereignty, by its courts, institutes to ascertain whether its prerogative rights have been invaded; … . … quo warranto is a direct, rather than a collateral, attack on the record or other matter assailed … . … Originally the information in the nature of quo warranto, which succeeded the ancient writ, was essentially a criminal prosecution instituted for the purpose of subjecting defendant to punishment by fine, as well as judgment of ouster … Thus quo warranto, or a proceeding in the nature thereof, is the sole and exclusive remedy and method by which various matters may be tried and determined, as, for example, the right and title to office … .” Corpus Juris Secundum, West Publishing Company; Volume 74 Pages 174 – 189.

“A writ of quo warranto is one of the extraordinary remedies afforded by law, though it still retains some of it’s ancient criminal aspects, such as enabling the court to fine the defendant, yet it casts the burden of proof upon the defendant to make disclosure concerning the facts averred ,by the relator.” State ex rel. Hallgarth v. School Dist. No. 23, Union County, 172 P.2d 655, 179 Or. 441. (1946) (Citation from 28 Oregon Digest, 2nd -86)

Quo Warranto: 2. Pleadings in quo warranto are anomalous. In ordinary legal proceedings, the plaintiff, whether he be the state or a person, is bound to show a case against the defendant. But in an information of quo warranto, as well as in the writ for which it substituted, the order is reversed. The state is not bound to show anything, but the defendant is bound to show that he has a right to the franchise or office in question; and if he fail to show authority, judgment must be given against him. Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, by John Bouvier; 1868 – 1870

QUO WARRANTO, is hereby directed against defendant the BARACK OBAMA, et als,, acting under color of office within the State of Illinois, as SENATOR OF THE UNITED STATES, as well as within the State of California, you are hereby commanded to show your lawful authority to instantly produce UNDER EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES, your proper and lawful bona fides as required by the concise rule of law. WHEREAS, you are hereby directed to show your proper delegation legal authority thereby, under QUO WARRANTO terms and conditions cited herein in the following particulars:

Actions in quo warranto are governed by Code Civ. Proc. §§ 803-811 [Deering's]. The statutes of limitation applicable to actions in quo warranto are found in Code Civ. Proc. §§ 349.1[Deering's], 349.4[Deering's], and 349[Deering's]

QUO WARRANTO: An extraordinary proceeding, prerogative in nature, addressed to preventing a continued exercise of authority unlawfully asserted. Johnson v. Manhattan Ry. Co., N.Y., 289 U.S. 479, 53 S.Ct. 721, 77 L.Ed. 1331. It is intended to prevent exercise of powers that are not conferred by law, and is not ordinarily available to regulate the manner of exercising such powers.

The remedy of “quo warranto” belongs to the state, in it’s sovereign capacity, to protect the interests of the people as a whole and guard the public welfare, and it is a preventative remedy addressed to preventing a continued exercise of an authority unlawfully asserted, rather than correcting what has already been done under that authority. Citizens Utilities Co. of Cal. V. Superior Court, Alameda County, 56 Cal. App.3d 399, 128 Cal.Rptr. 582, 588. “Quo warranto” is legal action whereby legality of exercise of powers by municipal corporation may be placed in issue. People ex rel. City of Des Plaines v. Village of Mount Prospect, 29 Ill.App.3rd 807, 331 N.E.2d 337, 377.

Regulatory requirements applicable to a relator's application for leave to sue in quo warranto and appearances by a proposed defendant to oppose such an application are set out in 11 Cal. Code Reg. §§ 1-11 and 28 .

When Points and Authorities Required–Application for Leave to Sue:

The application for leave to sue in quo warranto submitted to the Attorney General by a relator [see 11 Cal. Code Reg. § 1 (relator as private party desiring leave to sue in name of people of California under law requiring prior permission from Attorney General)] must include points and authorities showing why the proposed proceeding should be brought in the name of the people of California [11 Cal. Code Reg § 2(b) ]. This requirement is satisfied by an application and a memorandum of points and authorities showing that it would be in the public interest to have the substantial issue of law or fact raised in the proposed complaint determined judicially [see 35 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 198, 199 (1960) (application in quo warranto to question right of city councilman to remain on council after moving to new residence outside city as presenting issue of importance to more than 350 California cities)].

The application for leave to sue must also include points and authorities supporting the contentions of the relator that a public office [8 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 221, 222 (1946)] or franchise [9 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 1, 2 (1947)] is usurped, intruded into, or unlawfully held or exercised by the proposed defendant [ 11 Cal. Code Reg § 2(b) ].

Once a complaint in quo warranto [Code Civ. Proc. §§ 803 [Deering's], 811 [Deering’s]] is filed, the action proceeds in the same manner as any other civil action [People v. Richmond (1965) 141 Cal. App. 2d 107, 117, 296 P.2d 351]. The requirements with respect to when memoranda of points and authorities must be submitted are the same as in any other civil action. For example, a party filing a demurrer or motion, except for a motion listed in Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 314 [Deering’s] must serve and file with that demurrer or motion a supporting memorandum [Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 313(a)[Deering’s]; for detailed discussion regarding when memoranda are required in civil proceedings generally.

I – STATED UNCONTROVERTED FACTS

WHICH GIVE RISE TO QUO WARRANTO AUTHORITY:

[GRAVAMEN]

A.) Your relator and relator comes before this court under EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES, in this courts ORIGINAL JURISDICTION as established under the constitution for the state of California 1849, in good faith, with no bad faith against any party; and,

B.) That it is a fact, that your relator and relator David Allan Herndon is in fact, a white Christian male adult, of the age of majority, a state Citizen of the California state Republic 1849, as defined under ARTICLE II of that constitution, to wit:

ARTICLE II.

Right of Suffrage.

Sec. 1. Every white male citizen of the United States, and every white male citizen of Mexico, who shall have elected to become a citizen of the United States, under the treaty of peace exchanged and ratified at Queretaro, on the 30th day of May, 1848 of the age of twenty-one years, who shall have been a resident of the State six months next preceding the election, and the county or district in which he claims his vote thirty days, shall be entitled to vote at all elections which are now or hereafter may authorized by law: Provided, nothing herein contained, shall be construed to prevent the Legislature, by a two-thirds concurrent vote, from admitting to the right of suffrage, Indians or the descendants of Indians, in such special cases as such proportion of the legislative body may deem just and proper.

Sec. 2. Electors shall, in all cases except treason, felony, or breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest on the days of the election, during their attendance at such election, going to and returning therefrom.

Sec. 3. No elector shall be obliged to perform militia duty on the day of election, except in time of war or public danger.

Sec. 4. For the purpose of voting, no person shall be deemed to have gained or lost a residence by reason of his presence or absence while employed in the service of the United States; nor while engaged in the navigation of the waters of this State, or of the United States, or of the high seas; nor while a student of any seminary of learning; nor while kept at any almshouse, or other asylum, at public expense; nor while confined in any public prison.

Sec. 5. No idiot or insane person, or person convicted of any infamous crime, shall be entitled to the privilege of an elector.

Sec. 6. All elections by the people shall be by ballot.

C.) And further; that your relator David Allan Herndon status is that of a White Christian male adult, not embarrassed nor limited by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution for the United States 1787-1791, who has proper and lawful standing to bring forth this WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO against aforementioned DEFENDANTS and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1 through 50, whom are public servants and of proper oath and/or affirmation and bonded in accordance with law, and are properly seated within their respective office and bound to the concise rule of law by their oaths, whom are public servants and are liable to BOTH THE FACTS AS WELL AS OF THE LAW OF THIS MATTER, and further,

D.) That your relator wants it judicially noted and placed on the record, that he is not a State of California “California Bar Association” trained lawyer and/or attorney, and that he is in fact, acting in good faith, with no bad faith against any party as In Propria Persona, Sui Juris, and this court must remit to me, sua sponte and other Constitutional rights, as well as liberal construction of the law, in which to prosecute this most solemn matter, as I have standing in which to file this Quo Warranto upon which relief can be reasonably granted.

E.) Said Defendants and Respondents are in fact, public officers and state actors upon the landmass of the State of California and not a territory, and come under the de jure laws declared by the Constitutions for the State of California 1849 as well as of the United States of America 1787-1791 and have knowledge of the facts as well as of the law of this matter, and are liable thereto.

F.) Whereas, it is a fact, and has gone undisputed that on or about August 21, 2008, attorney PHILIP J. BERG, filed a COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA under case number USDC E.D.Pa. No. 08-4083 against defendant BARACK OBAMA, et als, to demand that he produce his lawful bona fides and constitutional qualifications of citizenship to run for President of the United States.

G.) It is a fact, that on September 9, 2008, service of the Summons and Complaint was made on defendant(s) BARACK OBAMA and the DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE (USDC E.D.Pa. No. 08-4083 Document No. 7) within the aforesaid Federal court.

H.) It is a fact, that neither BARACK OBAMA nor the DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE answered that complaint whatsoever, thereby stipulating and accepting all terms and conditions and facts as well as of the law as they were presented in the original Complaint by PHILIP J. BERG and later his: PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (USDC E.D.Pa. No. 08-4083 Document No. 14-2).

“The Amended Complaint adds claims that were not included in the original Complaint. In addition to the claim that Obama is not a “natural born citizen” and is therefore not eligible to be President, Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have deprived him of his rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and 42 U.S.C. § 1986 (Counts Two, Three, & Four). The Amended Complaint also adds a Claim for Promissory Estoppel (Count Seven) and includes claims for violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act (“Campaign Act”), 2 U.S.C. § 437 (Count Five), violation of the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552 (Count Six), and a Claim of Loss of Nationality under U.S.C. § 1481(b)(Count Eight).

I.) The status of that case has been brought to the supreme court of the United States, which is not an issue here—but this issue within this QUO WARRANTO in particular concerns the natural born, common law and constitutional rights and privileges of your relator David Allan Herndon of which this state, and its supreme court is obligated and duty bound to protect as declared by the Constitution of California 1849 and the Constitution for the United States 1787-1791.

J.) Your relator, who brings this matter in propria persona, sui juris, under exigent circumstances; herein incorporates by reference the complete record of those proceedings, by reference, as though fully set forth herein.

K.) It is a fact, and has gone uncontroverted, that aforesaid attorney PHILIP J. BERG did directly challenge defendant in this matter, BARACK OBAMA, et als, and did institute TRO proceedings for defendant to produce his vault certified “birth certificate” proving his “natural born citizen[ship]” as required under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution for the United States 1787-1791; and,

L.) Further, that it is a fact, that aforesaid attorney PHILIP J. BERG, did list the various names of defendant BARACK OBAMA, et als,, in those pleadings, to your relators great detriment, surprise and alarm. Mr. BERG did list the following names on any and all of his legal paperwork of which defendant BARACK OBAMA, et als, has gone under:

• BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA a/k/a

• BARRY SOETORO, a/k/a

• BARRY OBAMA, a/k/a

• BARACK DUNHAM, a/k/a

• BARRY DUNHAM, a/k/a

M.) That it is a fact, that these other names used by defendant BARACK OBAMA, et als,, which are in the record of this matter, have not gone controverted; and,

N.) That your relator has it upon information and/or belief, that defendant BARACK OBAMA, et als, has not disavowed using these names and has defrauded the state; and,

O.) That it is a fact, and your relator has it upon personal information and/or belief, that defendant BARACK OBAMA, et als, has not given full disclosure as to these names, nor of his background, nor his lawful status, in which to procure his various offices of the public trust, and has thereby perjured himself in entering public office; and,

P.) That it is a fact, that defendant BARACK OBAMA, et als, was required to give this information, which he has and has known about, and continues and refuses to do so in direct violation of law; and,

Q.) That it is a fact, that the fundamental question of attorney PHILIP J. BERG demand for answers from defendant BARACK OBAMA, et als, within his federal case, require that defendant prove his true and correct citizenship, of which both defendant BARACK OBAMA, et als, and the DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE as well as the FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, etc., ad infinitum, ad naseum, refuse to do, in direct violation of the concise rule of law; as mandated and required by clear and concise constitutional requirements.

R.) Further, that it is a fact, and that your relator has it upon information and/or belief, that California Governor ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, was also asked by several citizens of the United States to run for the office of President of the United States, to which aforesaid Governor honorably and legally replied: “Change and amend your constitution,” [Sic.], rather than abrogate the concise rule of law.

S.) Whereas, it is a fact, that under the Constitution of California 1849, Article V, Section 7, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and all his subordinate state actors, state agencies, agents and assigns, are charged with the solemn obligation and duty to me that:

Sec. 7. He shall see that the laws are faithfully executed.

T.) Further, that it is a fact, that defendant BARACK OBAMA, et als, is insolent to the rule of law, AND IS NOT FAITHFULLY OBEYING NOR EXECUTING THE LAW, and has refused to produce his proper bona fides and legal and lawful qualifications to be on the STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2008 STATE ELECTIONS BALLOT, and that he is in fact, still on the STATE OF CALIFORNIA ballot as a Presidential Candidate, in direct violation to the concise rule of law.

BONA FIDES. Good faith; integrity of dealing; honesty; sincerity; the opposite of mala fides and of dolus malus.

Bona Fides exigit ut quod convenit fiat. “Good faith demands that what is agreed upon shall be done.” Dig. 19, 20, 21; Id. 19, 1, 50; id. 59, 8, 2, 13.

Bona Fides non patitur ut bis idem exigatur. “Good faith does not allow us to demand twice the payment of the same thing.” Dig. 50, 17, 57; Broom, Max. 338, note: 4 Johns. Ch. 143.

U.) Further, that your relator and petitioner the greatly damaged and aggrieved party in this matter, wants it judicially noted and placed on the record, that I am required by operation of law, to produce my full TRUE AND CORRECT and certain bona fides, VERIFYING MY LAWFUL IDENTITY as well as production of lawful identification and legal status in which to vote in any election upon the landmass of the State of California:

Elect. Code § 2188. (a) Any application for voter registration information available pursuant to law and maintained by the Secretary of State or by the elections official of any county shall be made pursuant to this section.

(b) The application shall set forth all of the following:

(1) The printed or typed name of the applicant in full.

(2) The complete residence address and complete business address of the applicant, giving street and number. If no street or number exists, a postal mailing address as well as an adequate designation sufficient to readily ascertain the location.

(3) The telephone number of the applicant, if one exists.

(4) The number of the applicant's driver's license, state identification card, or other identification approved by the Secretary of State if the applicant does not have a driver's license or state identification card.

(5) The specific information requested.

(6) A statement of the intended use of the information requested.

See also:

Elect. Code § 3011. (a) The identification envelope shall contain all of the following:

(1) A declaration, under penalty of perjury, stating that the voter resides within the precinct in which he or she is voting and is the person whose name appears on the envelope.

(2) The signature of the voter.

(3) The residence address of the voter as shown on the affidavit of registration.

(4) The date of signing.

(5) A notice that the envelope contains an official ballot and is to be opened only by the canvassing board.

(6) A warning plainly stamped or printed on it that voting twice constitutes a crime.

(7) A warning plainly stamped or printed on it that the voter must sign the envelope in his or her own handwriting in order for the ballot to be counted.

(8) A statement that the voter has neither applied, nor intends to apply, for a vote by mail voter's ballot from any other jurisdiction for the same election.

(9) The name of the person authorized by the voter to return the vote by mail ballot pursuant to Section 3017.

(10) The relationship to the voter of the person authorized to return the vote by mail ballot.

(11) The signature of the person authorized to return the vote by mail ballot.

(b) Except at a primary election for partisan office, and notwithstanding any other provision of law, the vote by mail voter's party affiliation may not be stamped or printed on the identification envelope.

V.) WHEREAS, it is a fact, that other candidates within the State of California, are mandatorily required to have the proper bona fides and background in order to qualify for the position within the public trust. Thereby defendant BARACK OBAMA, et als, must also conform to those same qualifications:

"Before a person can become an appellate justice, the Governor must submit the candidate's name to the Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission, which is comprised of public members and lawyers. The commission conducts a thorough review of the candidate's background and qualifications, with community input, and then forwards its evaluation of the candidate to the Governor.

W.) WHEREAS: COUNT 1, FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: That it is a fact, that on a date certain of August 21, 2008, within the several counties within the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and within plaintiff’s COUNTY OF Butte, that defendant(s) BARACK OBAMA, et als, did fraudulently previously apply for, and procure entry onto the California Secretary of State “Elections Division” and was illegally placed on the 2008 California State Ballot without the proper nor lawful bona fides, nor being a natural born Citizen, as required by the Constitution for the United States, Article II, Section 1, clause 5, and the Constitution of California 1849, Article II, et seq., thereby in overt violation of C.C.P. 803-811 et seq., and California Elections Code §§ 16440 and 6160:

Elect. Code § 6160. At least 60 days before a presidential primary, the Secretary of State shall notify each steering committee whether or not it has qualified a candidate or uncommitted delegation for placement on the ballot pursuant to Section 6060.

X.) WHEREAS, this solemn duty now devolves upon aforesaid defendants in this matter, and their surrogate courts and governments; acting in both their personal and professional capacities, to LAWFULLY PRODUCE THE LAWFUL ‘NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’ REQUIREMENT OF DEFENDANT BARACK OBAMA, et als,, OR TO INSTANTLY REMOVE HIS NAME FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2008 ELECTIONS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

Y.) That it is a fact, that due to defendant(s) BARACK OBAMA, et als, wilfull acts and/or omissions in this matter, and directly due to his continued obfuscations in this matter, that upon those conditions has left your relator David Allan Herndon UNDER EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES to file this WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO, to force production of defendant(s) BARACK OBAMA, et als, lawful bona fides and legal status which qualify him to be on the California Ballot, for the position of PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

Z.) Whereas, directly due to defendant(s) acts and/or omissions, your relator and greatly damaged and aggrieved party in this matter David Allan Herndon, has no other plain, or adequate, or speedy remedy to resolve this matter, but by WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO, petitioned into this judicial powers court of the Supreme Court of California of which defendant(s) acts and/or omissions have fulminated, creating a constitutional crisis; and,

AA.) That directly by and due to defendant(s) BARACK OBAMA, et als, wilfull acts and/or omissions in this matter, that they are in fact, removing your relator’s natural born, common law and constitutional right to vote (as well as other rights and privileges), as secured by (but not limited to) the Constitution of California 1849, Article II, et seq., Article I, Sec 8; Sec. 11 and 12; Sec. 14; and Sec. 21; as well as the Constitution for the United States 1787-1791, Article I, Section 2, Clause 2; Article I, Section 3, Clause 3; Article I, Section 8, Clause 4; Article I, Section 9, Clause 8; Article I, Section 10, Clause 1; Article II, Section 1, Clause 1; Article II, Section 1, Clause 3; Article II, Section 1, Clause 5; Article II, Section 1, Clause 8; and its attendant Amendments, I, IV, V, IX and Xth.

BB.) THAT FORMAL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that if defendant(s) acting in overt collusion with their surrogate courts and/or any other branch and/or department of state or federal government defy the concise rule of law in this matter, that they herein agree and stipulate to be fully liable to the full extent of the law for any and all acts and/or omissions in this matter:

ELECT. CODE § 5102: No party shall be recognized or qualified to participate in any primary election that either directly or indirectly carries on, advocates, teaches, justifies, aids, or abets the overthrow by any unlawful means of, or that directly or indirectly carries on, advocates, teaches, justifies, aids, or abets a program of sabotage, force and violence, sedition or treason against, the government of the United States or of this state.

CC.) Whereas, IT IS A FACT, THAT MY NATURAL BORN, COMMON LAW AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO VOTE, HAVE SUMMARILY BEEN REMOVED FROM ME, BY DEFENDANT BARACK OBAMA, et als, AND HIS SURROGATE COURT(S) WILFULL ACTS AN/OR OMISSIONS. FURTHER, THAT MY RIGHT TO VOTE, IS AN ABSOLUTE PROPERTY RIGHT, WHICH IS A VESTED RIGHT AND PERFECT RIGHT, WHICH BY AND THROUGH DEFENDANT’S MALFEASANCE AND OBFUSCATION, NOT ONLY IS A DIRECT DAMAGE AND INJURY TO ME, BUT SETTING THIS COUNTY, STATE AND NATION INTO A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS, OF WHICH DEFENDANT IS USING THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT TO DEPRIVE ME OF MY PRIMA FACIE SUBSTANTIVE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, AS WELL AS ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS RIGHTS—WHICH MAY DEVOLVE INTO WAR ONCE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS REFUSE TO OBEY THEIR OWN CONSTITUTION.

DD.) WHEREAS, it devolves upon this court, sitting in its original jurisdiction as a judicial powers court, to resolve this matter in the first instant; TO ANSWER THIS CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS; and command in the name of ‘we the people’ of the State of California, that defendant IMMEDIATELY produce his proper bona fides, PROVING HIS NATURAL BORN STATUS (which should have been done in the first instant of this matter) or in the alternative, that this court IMMEDIATELY PROHIBIT and PRECLUDE defendant BARACK OBAMA FROM BEING ON THE 2008 CALIFORNIA BALLOT AND THAT THEY COMMAND HIS INSTANT REMOVAL OF AFORESAID DEFENDANT FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2008 ELECTION BY ALL STATE AGENCIES AND BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, BY ANY EXIGENT MEANS NECESSARY.

II – FORMAL DEMAND FOR YOUR LAWFUL AUTHORITY

[DEMAND FOR QUO WARRANTO]

1.) That this court JUDICIAL POWERS comes under the State of California 1849, Article VI:

Sec. 1. The judicial power of this State shall be vested in a Supreme Court, in District Courts, in County Courts, and in Justices of the Peace. The Legislature may also establish such municipal and other inferior courts as may be deemed necessary.

See also:

Sec. 4. The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction in all cases when the matter in dispute exceeds two hundred dollars, when the legality of any tax, toll, or impost or municipal fine is in question, and in all criminal cases amounting to felony or questions of law alone. And the said Court, and each of the Justices thereof, as well as all district and county judges, shall have power to issue writs of habeas corpus at the instance of any person held in actual custody. They shall also have power to issue all other writs and process necessary to the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction, and shall be conservators of the peace throughout the State.

2.) That defendant BARACK OBAMA, MUST submit to me, your lawful authority to hold the office of “PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES” within the STATE OF CALIFORNIA which is an inseparable part of the UNITED STATES.

3.) Under UCC § 3-501(B)(2)(iii), I also demand in support of this QUO WARRANTO that BARACK OBAMA, et als, remit to me, the following, of which you are required to do as required under U.C.C. § 3-501(b)(2):

a.) Your lawful identification, in two certified forms; with proper and lawful signature; with photo identification; as well as a certified VAULT COPY of your CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH; and further:

b.) The formal TITLE of your office, and your proper and lawful and complete bona fides to that office; and,

c.) Your lawful delegation of authority to run as a qualified candidate on the 2008 California Elections Ballot.

4.) Under Constitutional authority and mandate under the Constitution of California, 1849, Article XII, Section 3, I demand BARACK OBAMA, et als, lawful oath of office as required by aforesaid Constitution of California 1849 and of the United States to hold the title and position of SENATOR OF THE UNITED STATES; and further:

5.) Under mandated statute authority, I demand production of BARACK OBAMA, et als, lawful individual bonding as required by law under the Statutes of California, “An Act Concerning the Official Bonds of Officers.” The People of the State of California, represented in Senate and Assembly do enact as follows—& etc., Approved February 28, 1850:

a.) The bond number; and,

b.) The amount of that lawful bond; and,

c.) The lawful money or property backing said bond; and,

d.) The sureties of said bond; and,

e.) The bonds company, its name, address; and,

f.) The practice, policy and/or procedure for forfeiture of BARACK OBAMA, et als, public bond, to be seized by me, David Allan Herndon for just cause shown.

6.) I demand that you BARACK OBAMA, et als, remit to me certified copies of your proper California Candidacy papers, certified by the Governor of the State of California and/or and registered with the California Secretary of State in accordance with law within his “ELECTIONS DIVISION,” SHOWING FULL AND TRUTHFUL DISCLOSURE IN THIS MATTER and:

7.) In the alternative, that if no lawful proof is shown conforming to the concise rule of law, that this court, under its ARTICLE III JUDICIAL POWERS, SUMMARILY REMOVE DEFENDANT BARACK OBAMA FROM THE 2008 ELECTION BALLOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

III–STATUS OF David Allan Herndon.

RIGHT TO BRING ACTION IN QUO WARRANTO

8.) Your relator in this matter David Allan Herndon; acting as his own private attorney general, is of a lawful and proper status to prosecute this WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO.

"Each citizen acts as a private attorney general who 'takes on the mantel of sovereign', [citation omitted] guarding for all of us the individual liberties enunciated in the Constitution. Section 1983 represents a balancing feature in our government structure whereby individual citizens are encouraged to police those who are charged with policing us all. Thus it is of special import that suits brought under this statute be resolved by a determination of the truth rather than by a determination that the truth shall remain hidden." Wood v. Breier, 54 F.R.D. 7, 10-11 (E.D.Wis. 1972). Accord Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339 (E.D. Pa. 1973)

See also:

“And the Constitution itself is in every real sense a law – the “Lawmakers being the People themselves”, in whom under Our System All Political Power & Sovereignty primarily Resides, & through whom such Power & Sovereignty primarily Speaks.

It is by that law, and not otherwise, that the legislative, executive, and judicial agencies which it created exercise such political authority as they have been permitted to possess.

The Constitution speaks for itself in terms so plain that to misunderstand their import is not rationally possible. “We the people of the United States,” it says, “do ordain and establish this Constitution …”

Ordain and Establish ! These are definite words of enactment, and without more would stamp what follows with dignity and character of law. The framers of the Constitution, however, were not content to let the matter rest here, but provided explicitly – “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; … shall be the supreme Law of the Land; …”

The supremacy of the Constitution as law is thus declared without qualification.

That supremacy is absolute; the supremacy of a statute enacted by Congress is not absolute but conditioned upon its being made in pursuance to the Constitution. And a judicial tribunal, clothed by that instrument with complete judicial power, and, therefore, by the very nature of the power, required to ascertain and apply the law to the facts in every case or proceeding properly brought for adjudication, must apply the supreme law and reject the inferior statute whenever the two conflict.” Carpenter v. Carter, 298 US 296 (1935)

See also:

The “private attorney general” concept holds that a successful private party plaintiff is entitled to recovery of his legal expenses, including attorney fees, if he has advanced the policy inherent in public interest legislation on behalf of a significant class of persons. Dasher v. Housing Authority of City of Atlanta, Ga., D.C.Ga., 64 F.R.D.22.2 720, 722. See also Equal Access to Justice Act. [Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition]

See also:

Cal. B&P: § 17204. Actions for any relief pursuant to this chapter shall be prosecuted exclusively in a court of competent jurisdiction by the Attorney General or any district attorney or by any county counsel authorized by agreement with the district attorney in actions involving violation of a county ordinance, or any city attorney of a city, or city and county, having a population in excess of 750,000, and, with the consent of the district attorney, by a city prosecutor in any city having a full-time city prosecutor or, with the consent of the district attorney, by a city attorney in any city and county in the name of the people of the State of California upon their own complaint or upon the complaint of any board, officer, person, corporation or association or by any person acting for the interests of itself, its members or the general public.

See also:

Cal. B&P: § 17535. Any person, corporation, firm, partnership, joint stock company, or any other association or organization which violates or proposes to violate this chapter may be enjoined by any court of competent jurisdiction.

The court may make such orders or judgments, including the appointment of a receiver, as may be necessary to prevent the use or employment by any person, corporation, firm, partnership, joint stock company, or any other association or organization of any practices which violate this chapter, or which may be necessary to restore to any person in interest any money or property, real or personal, which may have been acquired by means of any practice in this chapter declared to be unlawful.

Actions for injunction under this section may be prosecuted by the Attorney General or any district attorney, county counsel, city attorney, or city prosecutor in this state in the name of the people of the State of California upon their own complaint or upon the complaint of any board, officer, person, corporation or association or by any person acting for the interests of itself, its members or the general public.

9.) It is a fact, that the record placed on the solemn record of this matter, and has gone uncontested; that David Allan Herndon is a white Christian male adult, of the age of majority, a non-fourteenth amendment California state Citizen, a sovereign human being with full vested natural born, common law and constitutional rights and privileges, a member of “we the people” of the posterity whose rights supercede the STATE OF CALIFORNIA and all its ancillary agents, state actors and agencies who are in fact, his public servants; and as his own private attorney general, he comes before this court with the full law of the country.

"The revolution, or rather the Declaration of Independence, found the people already united …. From the crown of Great Britain, the sovereignty of their country passed to the people of it; … . … "We the people of the United States, do ordain and establish this constitution." Here we see the people acting as sovereigns of the whole country; and in the language of sovereignty, establishing a constitution by which it was their will, that the state governments should be bound, and to which constitutions should be made to conform…

It will be sufficient to observe briefly, that the sovereignties in Europe and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the prince as the sovereign, and the people his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance, and excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject, either in a court of justice or elsewhere. That system contemplates him as being the fountain of honor and authority; and from his grace and grant, derives all franchises, immunities and privileges; it is easy to perceive, that such a sovereign could not be amendable to a court of justice, or subjected to judicial control and actual constraint… The same feudal ideas run through all their jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between the prince and the subject.

"No such ideas obtain here; at the revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects… and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow-citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.

From the differences existing between feudal sovereignties and governments founded on compacts, it necessarily follows that their respective prerogatives must differ, Sovereignty is the right to govern; a nation or state sovereign is the person or persons in whom that resides.

In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the prince; here it rests with the people; there the sovereign actually administers the government; here never in a single instance; our governors are the agents of the people; and at most stand in the same relation to their sovereign, in which the regents of Europe stand to their sovereigns. Their princes have personal powers, dignities and preeminence, our rulers have none but official; nor do they partake in the sovereignty otherwise, or in any other capacity, than as private citizens." Chisholm Ex'r. v. Georgia, 2 Dall. {U.S.} 419, 1 L.Ed. 440, (U.S.Ga. 1793). [emphasis added]

Generally, a supporting or opposing memorandum of points and authorities must not exceed 15 pages, or in the case of a memorandum supporting or opposing motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, 20 pages. A reply or closing memorandum may not exceed 10 pages [see Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 313(d)[Deering's] ]. Any party desiring to file a longer memorandum must obtain leave of court [see Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 313(e)[Deering's]]. For further discussion of the page limitations under Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 313[Deering's] , and of other basic format requirements of memoranda of points and authorities, see Ch. 1, Writing Legal Memoranda and Briefs, § 1.05.

DUE TO THE BAD-FAITH ACTS AND/OR OMISSIONS BY DEFENDANT BARACK OBAMA, et als,, AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL GRAVITY OF THIS MATTER, YOUR RELATOR, David Allan Herndon THE GREATLY DAMAGED PARTY IN THIS MATTER ALONG WITH ‘WE THE PEOPLE’ MAKE FORMAL ENTRY TO THIS COURT TO OBTAIN LEAVE OF THE COURT TO FILE THIS QUO WARRANTO UNDER THESE EXCEPTIONAL AND EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES IN ITS PRESENT CONDITION.

10.) That this courts denial to consider and act on this matter, will be a solemn and irreparable damage against all other similarly situated state Citizens within the State of California, as well as of the United States, as it will have actively enjoined in the desecration of the Constitution for the united States, as well as the Constitution of California, as well as all other forty-nine union of several states.

11.) Further, that this court, in any refusal to uphold its constitutional duty, will severely jeopardize the State of California, as well as of the United States, for as a factual ineligible candidate and foreign denizen and thereby elected official to the Office of President of the United States, if it came to the point that defendant BARACK OBAMA committed any act of TREASON or MISPRISON OF FELONY, that it is a fact, that aforesaid defendant could not be legally convicted of those high crimes: AS HE IS NOT A LAWFUL NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, as those crimes only apply to CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES!

12.) In contravention, that in fact, implementing and procedurally recognizing this Quo Warranto, holds no detriment to either the opposing side or the country:

a.) The defendant BARACK OBAMA, et als, may, if and when he is able to correct his basic citizenship and constitutional errors may re-apply for the public office in four years; and,

b.) That the country, both state and Federal, still has other several valid candidates in which to select for the office of President of the United States; and,

c.) Further, that this court, will have confirmed the extant constitutional principle, that the constitutions: both state and federal, are indeed, the highest law in the land.

13.) It is a fact, that David Allan Herndon, as a sovereign, of proper and lawful status, and as a member of the posterity of “we the people” as declared under the PREAMBLE of the Constitution of California 1849, is of a lawful delegation of authority and of proper status to bring this QUO WARRANTO against usurper defendant BARACK OBAMA, et als, in the name and under the authority of WE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA:

IV — MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Related memoranda of points and authorities that may be useful in particular quo warranto cases may be found in Ch. 71, Demurrers and Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings.

14.) A SUIT IN QUO WARRANTO IS PROPER TO REMEDY THE USURPATION OF A PUBLIC OFFICE.

A. Quo Warranto Proper Against Usurper of Public Office. An action in quo warranto may be brought by the Attorney General, in the name of the people of the State of California, upon his/her own information or upon the complaint of a private party, against any person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises any public office, civil or military (Code Civ. Proc. § 803[Deering's]).

B. Public Office Defined. A public office is created by a legislature prescribing the duties of a position or employment and fixing the compensation therefore, where those duties pertain to the public and are continuing and permanent, not occasional or temporary (People ex rel. Chapman v. Rapsey (1940) 16 Cal. 2d 636, 639, 107 P.2d 388 ).

C. Title to Elective Office. Title to an elective office cannot be litigated by any other means than a quo warranto action (Visnich v. Sacramento County Bd. of Educ. (1974) 37 Cal. App. 3d 684, 690, 112 Cal. Rptr. 469 ).

D. Two Persons Elected to Same Office. A cause of action for usurpation of public office is stated where it appears from the complaint that two persons are declared elected to one office, received certificates and qualified, and are performing duties thereof (People v. Davidson (1905) 2 Cal. App 100, 103, 83 P 161).

E. Person Holding Two Incompatible Offices. An action in quo warranto is the only proper method of challenging an individual's right to hold two incompatible offices (People ex rel. Chapman v. Rapsey (1940) 16 Cal. 2d 636, 644, 107 P.2d 388 ).

15.) Public Office Defined.

In People ex rel. Chapman v. Rapsey (1940) 16 Cal. 2d 636, 107 P.2d 388, the Attorney General instituted a suit in quo warranto against an individual to determine by what right and authority that individual held the offices of city judge and city attorney for the community concurrently. Defendant demurred to the complaint, arguing that a city attorney was not a public officer and, in the alternative, if a city attorney was a public officer, his duties were not in conflict with his duties as a city judge. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed with directions to the trial court to overrule the demurrer and proceed with the disposition of the case. The Court found that the position of city attorney was a public office in that the legislature created the position, fixed the compensation therefore, and prescribed the duties, which pertained to the public and were continuing and permanent, not occasional or temporary [People ex rel. Chapman v. Rapsey (1940) 16 Cal. 2d 636, 639, 107 P.2d 388]. Furthermore, the Court found that the Attorney General had stated a cause of action in quo warranto by alleging the holding of two incompatible offices by one individual since the duties of city judge and city attorney are incompatible and, when two offices are incompatible, an individual terminates his or her right to hold the first office upon his or her accepting the second [People ex rel. Chapman v. Rapsey (1940) 16 Cal. 2d 636, 644, 107 P.2d 388].

Title to Elective Office

In Visnich v. Sacramento County Bd. of Educ. (1974) 37 Cal. App. 3d 684, 112 Cal. Rptr. 469, plaintiff petitioned for a writ of mandate against a school district to require reapportionment of the seven trustee areas within the school district. The trial court found the school district in need of reapportionment and approved a plan of reapportionment. The plaintiff requested a special election in which all trustees were to stand for election even though their terms were not yet expired. This request was granted in the judgment, and the writ of mandate issued. The school district appealed. On plaintiff's request, the trial court is- – sued an order directing that the school district's appeal not operate as a stay of execution of the judgment, whereupon the school district petitioned for a writ of mandate compelling the superior court to vacate this order. The court of appeal stayed the order directing a special election of trustees and found that an action in quo warranto, not a mandate proceeding, was the proper means to try title to elective office and that the trial court had exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering a special election which would have reduced the term of office of some of the trustees (37 Cal. App. 3d 684, 690).

Two Persons Elected to Same Office

In People v. Davidson (1905) 2 Cal. App. 100, 83 P. 161, a complaint in quo warranto to oust individuals exercising the office of constable was amended at trial following a motion by defendants for nonsuit. The defendants objected to the amending of the complaint. However, amendment was permitted. Subsequently, judgment was entered ousting defendants and defendants' motion for a new trial was denied. The defendants maintained on appeal that the complaint should not have been amended and that the complaint, even as amended to include an allegation that illegal ballots were regularly counted in the election of a constable, failed to state a cause of action. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's decision in favor of plaintiff and found that plaintiff had stated a cause of action by alleging that two persons had been declared elected to one office, had received certificates and qualified, had performed the duties of the office, and were usurpers and intruders (2 Cal. App. 100, 103).

Person Holding Two Incompatible Offices

People ex rel. Chapman v. Rapsey (1940) 16 Cal. 2d 636, 107 P.2d 388 , is discussed under Public Office Defined, above.

16.) Quo Warranto Proper Against Usurper of Public Office.

In 27 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 249 (1956), a relator sought permission to sue in quo warranto from the Attorney General. The relator stated that a special election had been ordered by a county's board of supervisors to determine if the voters would recall a hospital director, and that the relator had been nominated by the board of supervisors as a candidate to succeed the hospital director in the event the director was recalled. The relator challenged the election which had failed to recall the hospital director by a slim margin by alleging the invalidity of some of the absentee ballots cast. The Attorney General, in granting leave to sue in quo warranto to the relator, found that the right of a director to hold office in a hospital district could be tested in an action in quo warranto when the allegation is made that ballots were improperly cast in a recall election of that director, thus making him a usurper of public office [27 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 249, 252 (1956)].

17.) Title to Elective Office.

In People v. Kwolek (1995) 40 Cal. App. 4th 1521, 48 Cal. Rptr. 2d 325, a criminal defendant claimed that his conviction was void because the judge, a municipal judge sitting by assignment on the superior court, had no authority to sit as a permanent member of the superior court. Defendant raised the issue on appeal. Although it addressed the issue on the merits, and concluded that the judge did have proper authority, the court of appeal also held that the validity of the judge's appointment could not be challenged in the appeal because the proper method of challenge was a quo warranto proceeding (40 Cal. App. 4th 1521, 1531).

Form 2 Supporting Application for Leave to Sue in Quo Warranto [11 Cal. Code Reg § 2(b)]–Usurpation of Franchise–By Person [Code Civ. Proc. § 803]

18.) A SUIT IN QUO WARRANTO IS PROPER TO REMEDY THE USURPATION OF A FRANCHISE BY AN INDIVIDUAL.

A. Quo Warranto Proper Against Usurper of Franchise. An action in quo warranto may be brought by the Attorney General, in the name of the people of the State of California, upon his/her own information or upon the complaint of a private party, against any person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises any franchise (Code Civ. Proc. § 803 [Deering's]).

B. Franchise Defined. A franchise is a special privilege to perform certain acts or exercise certain functions which is conferred upon an individual by a government duly empowered to grant the privilege (Oakland v. Hogan (1940) 41 Cal. App. 2d 333, 346, 106 P.2d 987 ).

C. How Franchise Granted. The grant of a franchise may be in the exercise of administrative, legislative, or judicial powers (Oakland v. Hogan (1940) 41 Cal. App. 2d 333, 342, 106 P.2d 987 ).

19.) Franchise Defined.

In Oakland v. Hogan (1940) 41 Cal. App. 2d 333, 106 P.2d 987, the City of Oakland initiated a quo warranto action under Code Civ. Proc. § 811[Deering's] to determine the authority of certain persons to maintain and operate a private wharf on public tidelands without having obtained any city or state franchise for that right. Defendants' demurrer to the city's amended complaint was sustained without leave to amend. The city did not amend, judgment was entered for defendants, and the city appealed. Defendants argued that the maintenance of a wharf for the private business of its owner did not constitute the exercise of a franchise. The court of appeal defined a franchise as a special privilege conferred on an individual or a corporation by a government duly empowered legally to grant the privilege and stated that if the privilege is one that any individual may enjoy without a permit from the government or is a right which one individual may grant to another individual without approval of the government, the privilege is not a franchise [Oakland v. Hogan (1940) 41 Cal. App. 2d 333, 346, 106 P.2d 987 ]. The court found that the city was vested with jurisdiction to grant or withhold a franchise to operate a private wharf on its public lands and was, under Code Civ. Proc. § 811 [Deering's] , entitled to maintain an action in quo warranto. Therefore, it reversed and remanded the case to the superior court with instructions to overrule the demurrer and allow defendants a reasonable time in which to answer [Oakland v. Hogan (1940) 41 Cal. App. 2d 333, 358-359, 106 P.2d 987 ].

20.) How Franchise Granted.

Oakland v. Hogan (1940) 41 Cal. App. 2d 333, 106 P.2d 987, is discussed under Franchise Defined, above.

Form 3 Supporting Application for Leave to Sue in Quo Warranto [11 Cal. Code Reg § 2(b)]–Usurpation of Franchise–By Corporation [Code Civ. Proc. § 803][Caption. See Form 1. ]

21.) A SUIT IN QUO WARRANTO IS PROPER TO REMEDY THE USURPATION OF A FRANCHISE BY A CORPORATION.

A. Quo Warranto Proper Against Corporate Usurper of Franchise. An action in quo warranto may be brought by the Attorney General, in the name of the people of the State of California, upon his/her own information or upon the complaint of a private party, against any corporation, either de jure or de facto, which usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises any franchise in the State of California (Code Civ. Proc. § 803 [Deering's]).

B. Franchise Defined. A franchise is a special privilege to perform certain acts or exercise certain functions which is conferred upon a corporation by a government duly empowered to grant the privilege (Oakland v. Hogan (1940) 41 Cal. App. 2d 333, 346, 106 P.2d 987).

C. Usurpation Defined. Usurpation occurs where a corporation exercises a power it has no right to exercise (People v. Rosenstein-Cohn Cigar Co. (1900) 131 Cal. 153, 157, 63 P 163).

D. Exclusive Remedy to Attack Corporate Validity. An action in quo warranto is the only proper remedy in cases questioning or attacking the existence and organization of a private, municipal, or other public corporation (San Ysidro Irrigation Dist. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 708, 715, 16 Cal. Rptr. 609, 365 P.2d 753 ).

E. Proper to Oust Corporation From Exercise of Unlawful Franchise. An action in quo warranto is proper to oust a corporation from the exercise of a franchise which is unlawful for it to exercise (People v. California Protective Corp. (1926) 76 Cal. App 354, 361, 244 P 1089).

22.) Usurpation Defined.

In People v. Rosenstein-Cohn Cigar Co. (1900) 131 Cal. 153, 63 P 163, an action was brought in quo warranto to revoke a corporation's charter and to dissolve the corporation for its alleged failure to organize and commence the transaction of business within one year of its incorporation as required by statute. The trial court found that the corporation did commence business within one year. Judgment was entered in favor of defendant and plaintiff's motion for a new trial was denied. Plaintiff appealed on the ground that the judgment was not supported by the evidence. The Supreme Court stated that a franchise is in the nature of a trust, the terms of a corporation's charter being the conditions of the trust, and that a corporation's charter is to be forfeited when it violated one or more of the essential conditions of the trust. The Court found that no essential conditions of the corporation's charter had been violated by the corporation and, thus, that there had been no usurpation of its corporate franchise [People v. Rosenstein-Cohn Cigar Co. (1900) 131 Cal. 153, 156-157, 63 P 163]. Because the corporation had not usurped its franchise, the Court affirmed the trial court's judgment for defendant and order denying a new trial.

23.) Exclusive Remedy to Attack Corporate Validity.

In San Ysidro Irrigation Dist. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 708, 16 Cal. Rptr. 609, 365 P.2d 753, the City of San Diego brought an action for declaratory relief and for preliminary and permanent injunctions against an irrigation district to prevent construction of new water lines. The trial court issued a temporary restraining order against the irrigation district. The district moved for dismissal and filed a demurrer alleging that quo warranto was the exclusive means by which the city could test the existence of the district. The demurrer was overruled and a preliminary injunction was issued. The district then petitioned for a writ of prohibition to restrain the superior court from any further proceedings against the district. The Supreme Court denied the writ. The Court pointed out that, in an action by the Attorney General under Code Civ. Proc. § 803[Deering's], quo warranto is the exclusive remedy by which to question or attack the existence and organization of a private, municipal, or other public corporation. Therefore, a declaratory relief action would not be proper [San Ysidro Irrigation Dist. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 708, 715-716, 16 Cal. Rptr. 609, 365 P.2d 753 ]. However, the court noted that when a quo warranto action is brought by a city under Code Civ. Proc. § 811[Deering's], an action for declaratory relief is equally available since the latter action does not enlarge the jurisdiction of the superior court over the parties or the subject matter [San Ysidro Irrigation Dist. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 708, 717, 16 Cal. Rptr. 609, 365 P.2d 753 ].

24.) Proper to Oust Corporation From Exercise of Unlawful Franchise.

In People v. California Protective Corp. (1926) 76 Cal. App 354, 244 P 1089, the Attorney General brought an action in quo warranto against a corporation employing attorneys to render legal services for its clients for a yearly charge. The corporation's first demurrer was overruled and its second demurrer was overruled when it failed to appear. The trial court issued an order restraining the corporation from the practice of law and excluding it from exercising a corporate franchise in California. In addition, the trial court levied a fine and costs on the defendant corporation. The corporation appealed from the judgment and from the order denying its motion to retax costs. The judgment and order were affirmed on appeal. The court of appeal found that a cause of action was stated in that the complaint alleged that defendant was incorporated for and was engaged in the rendering of legal services to its patrons, members, and clients paying a specified yearly charge pursuant to an employment contract [People v. California Protective Corp. (1926) 76 Cal. App 354, 359, 244 P 1089]. In addition, because the court of appeal found that the right to practice law was in the nature of a franchise from the State, it held that an action in quo warranto lies to secure a judgment of ouster and seizure of the franchise when a corporation unlawfully assumes to exercise that right [People v. California Protective Corp. (1926) 76 Cal. App 354, 361, 244 P 1089].

Statute Applicable to Quo Warranto Actions. Section 349 1/2 of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to actions in quo warranto (People v. Los Angeles (1928) 93 Cal. App 532, 536, 538, 269 P 934).

A complaint in quo warranto is subject to a general demurrer if the specific facts stated and relied on by the pleader to show a usurpation do not state a cause of action (People v. Palm Springs (1958) 51 Cal. 2d 38, 41, 331 P.2d 4).

Leave to Sue as Compelled When Abuse of Discretion in Refusing Requested Leave to Sue. The court may compel by mandate that the Attorney General grant leave to sue in quo warranto when the Attorney General's abuse of discretion in refusing the requested leave to sue is extreme and clearly indefensible (Campbell v. Mosk (1961) 197 Cal. App. 2d 640, 648, 17 Cal. Rptr. 584 ).

The Constitution of the State of California of 1849, article XI, § 3:

Members of the legislature, and all officers, executive and judicial, except such inferior officers as may be by law exempted, shall, before they enter on the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the state of California, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of ———-, according to the best of my ability."

And no other oath, declaration, or test, shall be required as qualification for any office or public trust.

Compiled Laws of California, Garfielde & Snyder, Compilers, The Press of The Franklin Printing House (1853), p. 40 et seq.

6.b. The first Statute relating to oaths of office read (in part):

SECTION 1. The official bonds of officers shall be approved and filed as follows, to wit: the official bond of the Secretary of State shall be approved by the Governor, and filed and recorded in the office of the County Clerk of the county in which the seat of government is fixed; (1) the official bond of the Attorney General, Surveyor General, Comptroller, Treasurer, State Printer, and Clerk of the Supreme Court shall be approved by the Governor, filed and recorded in the office of the Secretary of State; the official bond of each District Attorney shall be approved by the Judge of the District, filed and recorded in the office of the County Clerk of any one of the counties in the District which may be designated by said Judge; (2) the official bonds of Sheriffs, Coroners, Justices of the Peace, and all other county officers shall be approved by the County Judge, filed and recorded in the office in the County Clerk of their respective counties; the official bonds of County Clerks shall be approved by the County Judge and filed and recorded in the office of the County Recorder.

. . .

SEC. 4. If any person, elected or appointed to any office, shall perform any of the duties thereof without having executed and filed in the proper office any bond required of him by law, he shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be fined in a sum not exceeding one thousand dollars, and his office be declared vacant.

6.c. The Constitution of the State of California of 1879, article XX, § 3 read (emphasis added):

Members of the Legislature, and all officers, executive and judicial, except such inferior officers as may be by law exempted, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be,) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of ——-, according to the best of my ability."

And no other oath, declaration, or test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust. Statutes of California (1880). p. xxiii et seq.

V. CURRENT CONSTITUTIONS,

AND STATUTES,

AND CASE DECISIONAL LAW.

25.) FOUNDATIONAL LAW:

A. CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT A CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES BE A ‘NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.’

I.) Under the Constitution for the United States, 1787-1791, Article II, Section 1, clause 5:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

II.) It is a fact, that the State of California is an INSEPARABLE PART OF THE UNITED STATES. Reference Constitution of California, Article III:

SEC. 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

III.) Defendant BARACK OBAMA, et als, is excluded under the Constitution of California 1849, Article XI, Sec. 18:

Sec. 18. Laws shall be made to exclude from office, serving on juries, and from the right of suffrage, those who shall hereafter be convicted of bribery, perjury, forgery, or other high crimes. The privilege of free suffrage shall be supported by laws regulating elections, and prohibiting, under adequate penalties, all undue influence thereon from power, bribery, tumult, or other improper practice.

IV.) That without a duly certified and lodged “CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH,” that defendant BARACK OBAMA, et als, is precluded from attaining any position within the California Secretary of State ELECTION DIVISION, 2008 Election Ballot, and he must be removed per the California Secretary of State, KATHY MITCHELL, head of the ELECTION DIVISION and/or by direct authority of DEBRA BOWEN.

B. Public Servant’s Oaths of Office.

17.a. The Constitution for the United States, article VI, clause 3, reads (emphasis added):

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

United States Code Annotated, Const. (1999), art. VI, cl. 3. 7.b. 28 U.S.C.A. (1999), § 453 reads:

Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office:

"I, __________ ___________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _____________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

17.b. West's Ann.Cal. Const. (2002), article XX, § 3 reads (emphasis added):

Members of the Legislature, and all public officers and employees, executive, legislative, and judicial, except such inferior officers and employees as may be by law exempted, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation:

"I, ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.

"And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means except as follows:

______________________________________________

(If no affiliations, write in the words "No Exceptions")

and that during such time as I hold the office of ______________________________________________ I will not advocate nor become a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means."

And no other oath, declaration, or test, shall be required as a qualification for any public office or employment.

"Public officer and employee" includes every officer and employee of the State, including the University of California, every county, city, city and county, district, and authority, including any department, division, bureau, board, commission, agency, or instrumentality of any of the foregoing.

17.d. West's Ann.Cal.Gov. Code (2002), § 1360 reads (emphasis added):

Unless otherwise provided, before any officer enters on the duties of his office, he shall take and subscribe the oath or affirmation set forth in Section 3 of Article XX of the Constitution of California.

17.e. West's Ann.Cal.Gov. Code (2002), § 1192 reads (emphasis added):

When not otherwise provided for, within 10 days after receiving notice of their appointment, deputies and other subordinate officers shall take and file an oath in the manner required of their principals.

17.f. West's Ann.Cal.Gov. Code (2002), § 1363 reads:

(a) Unless otherwise provided, every oath of office certified by the officer before whom it was taken shall be filed within the time required as follows:

(1) The oath of all officers whose authority is not limited to any particular county, in the office of the Secretary of State.

(2) The oath of all officers elected or appointed for any county, and, except as provided in paragraph (4), of all officers whose duties are local, or whose residence in any particular county is prescribed by law, in the office of the county clerk of their respective counties.

(3) Each judge of a superior court, the county clerk, the executive officer or court administrator of the superior court, and the recorder shall file a copy of his or her official oath, signed with his or her own proper signature, in the office of the Secretary of State as soon as he or she has taken and subscribed his or her oath.

(4) The oath of all officers for any independent special district, as defined in Section 56044, in the office of the clerk or secretary of that district.

(b) Every oath of office filed pursuant to this section with the Secretary of State shall include the expiration date of the officer's term of office, if any. In the case of an oath of office for an appointed officer, if there is no expiration date set forth in the oath, or the officer leaves office before the expiration date, the appointing authority shall report in writing to the Secretary of State the officer's date of departure from office.

17.g. The United States Supreme Court has held:

"May the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles proceed with a fact-finding program under which the officers and employees within its jurisdiction are asked: (1) to take an oath of allegiance to the federal and state Constitutions and the laws of California as against all enemies of the United States of America, the State of California, and the county of Los Angeles; and (2) as such officers and employees to answer upon their oath or affirmation, (a) whether or not they advocate the overthrow of the government by force or violence and whether or not since December 7, 1941, they have been members of any organizations or political parties that advocate the overthrow of the government by force or violence, as well as to sign an affidavit not to advocate the overthrow of the government by force and violence or to become a member of an organization or political party which so advocated so long as the person is a county officer or employee; (b) to state any aliases they have ever used or been known by; and (c) to indicate whether they have ever been a member of or directly or indirectly supported any of the organizations listed in the affidavit submitted to them?"

This question must be answered in the affirmative. The mere asking of the question points unerringly to the answer any loyal, sane citizen of the United States of America would give to it. It is an unequivocal "Yes."

The people of the State of California are supreme and have the undoubted right to protect themselves and to preserve the form of government which they have adopted against any and all enemies whether they be domestic or foreign. It is not alone the right of the people to protect themselves and their chosen form of government against attacks from all sources, but it is their duty to do so, since they have been guaranteed to the people of the United States "a Republican Form of Government" in this state. (U. S. Const., art. IV, section 4; Const. of Calif., art. I, section 3.)

Every citizen is a minority member of society, and the form of government which the people of the several states have adopted guarantees to each minority member, as well as to the majority, a republican form of government in his own state. …

All this is spite of an occasional administrative failure to adhere to the Constitution of the United States, due to incompetence or criminal design of some individual.

…The foregoing cases support the obvious rule that plaintiffs, as public servants, have the implied duty to support the form of government lawfully chosen by the people whom they are employed to represent, to act as representatives of the people and not to advocate destruction of the government by force or violence. By accepting public employment they forego any privilege they may have had as private citizens to advocate the overthrow of the government by force and violence. It is inconceivable that they should be permitted to represent the people, be supported by the people, and at the same time have the privilege of advocating the overthrow of the very government by which they are employed and obtain their livelihood. If they cannot subscribe to the prescribed affidavit they may join those who serve themselves in the ranks of private employment.

…If they desire to advocate the overthrow of the government of the United States, the State of California, or the county of Butte, they may do so by any and all lawful means after first resigning from their public employment. … A servant employed by the people is held to an even higher standard, and his employer, the people, not only may, but it is their duty through their authorized representatives to make proper inquiry as to his fitness for the position which he occupies and as to his intentions and acts relative to his loyalty to the people. Steiner v. Darby (1948), 88 Cal.App.2d 481, 199 P.2d 429; appeal dism. (1949), 338 U.S. 327, 94 L.Ed. 144, 70 S.Ct. 161.

17.h. The California Supreme Court has held:

Of course, election alone did not constitute [him] the incumbent of the office. The law required him, after receiving his certificate of election, to take the oath of office, and give bonds within the time required by law. If he failed to do these things according to law, and within the time required by law, the office was vacant. (Sections 907, 947, 996, Pol. Code; Payne v. San Francisco, 3 Cal. 125; People v. Taylor, 57 Cal. 620.) Until an officer-elect takes the oath of office and gives bonds according to law, he is not authorized to discharge the duties of the office. [That person] is not an incumbent.

…Being the actual incumbent of the office, he was in possession under color of right; he was at least a de facto officer, and had a vested right as such until his right was questioned by some one in a proper proceeding for that purpose. … It can be made only by an original proceeding by information in the nature of a quo warranto against him as incumbent of the office. (People v. Olds, 3 Cal. 176; People v. Scannell, 7 Cal. 432; Satterlee v. San Francisco, 23 Cal. 320; People v. Sassovich, 29 Cal. 480.)(emphasis added) Hull v. Superior Court, (1883), 63 Cal. 174, 176-177.

17.i. A California appellate court has held:

Given the basic purpose of the oath it follows in reason that the requirement of execution of the oath "before" entering upon the duties to be undertaken establishes the execution of the oath as a condition precedent to a lawful undertaking of those duties. It becomes, in a sense, a matter of eligibility, for one who cannot take the oath, in effect, is rendered ineligible for public employment. (Cf. Reed v. Hammond, 18 Cal.App. 442 [123 P. 346]; Searcy v. Grow, 15 Cal. 117.)

While the employment which is the subject of this appeal is undoubtedly not a "public office" as contemplated by Government Code, section 1303 (Hirschman v. County of Los Angeles, 39 Cal.2d 698 [249 P.2d 287, 250 P.2d 145]), nevertheless the importance of the oath of office as a prerequisite in the eyes of the Legislature is indicated by its action in declaring the exercise of the function of a public office before taking the oath of office to be a misdemeanor. The constitutional provision does not impose a criminal penalty in such case but, also, it makes no distinction in the necessity of the oath as between "public officers and employees." The execution of the oath is essential to the status of de jure employment the lack of which precludes the right to compensation for services rendered (cf. Lopez v. Payne, 51 Cal.App. 447, 449 [196 P. 919]; Norton v. Lewis, 34 Cal.App. 621, 624 [168 P. 388]). … We hold that appellant did not become a lawful employee of respondent county. (emphasis added) Smith v. County Engineer, (1968), 266 Cal.App.2d 645, 653-654; 72 Cal.Rptr. 501.

17.j. The California Attorney General has issued Opinions affirming the requirement of a valid Oath of Office:

58 Ops.Cal.A.G. 473;

62 Ops.Cal.A.G. 132;

78 Ops.Cal.A.G. 287.

17.k. I reasonably infer from the foregoing information that the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California, as well as statutes and case law, consistently require that State of California officers and employees must execute an Official Oath of Office before commencing the duties of their office.

B. Public Servants Official Bonds

17.l. Form and Substance of Official Bonds "See Stats. 'The Bonding of public Officials' Feb. 22, 1850".

Stats. 1850, ch. 21, "An Act concerning the Official Bonds of Officers.", Feb. 28, 1850. “An Act concerning the official Bonds of Officials" Statutes of California, passed February 28, 1850

"The official bonds of officers shall be approved and filed as follows, to wit:

(2) the official bonds of Sheriffs, Coroners, Justices of the Peace, and all other county officers shall be approved by the County Judge, filed and recorded in the office of the County Clerk of their respective counties; the official bonds of county Clerks shall be approved by the County Judge and filed and recorded in the office of the County Recorder."

Sec. 4. If any person, elected or appointed to any office, shall perform any of the duties thereof without having executed and filed in the proper office any bond required of him by law, he shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be fined in a sum not exceeding one thousand dollars, and his office be declared vacant.

Elections Code 10554. Elective officers, elected or appointed pursuant to this part, take office at noon on the first Friday in December next following the general district election. Prior to taking office, each elective officer shall take the official oath and execute any bond required by the principal act.

Reference also:

A useful reference is The Bluebook A Uniform System of Citation 16th Ed. (1996)

17.m. West's Ann.Cal.Gov. Code (2002), § 1501 reads (emphasis added):

The condition of an official bond shall be that the principal will well, truly, and faithfully perform all official duties then required of him by law, and also such additional duties as may be imposed on him by any existing law of the State or law enacted subsequently to the execution of the bond.

17.n. West's Ann.Cal.Gov. Code (2002), § 1500 reads:

All official bonds shall be made payable to the State of California in such penalty and with such conditions as required by this article, or the law creating or regulating the duties of the office.

17.o. West's Ann.Cal.Gov. Code (2002), § 1504 reads:

Every official bond executed by any officer pursuant to law is in force and obligatory upon the principal and sureties therein for:

(a) Any and all breaches of the conditions thereof committed during the time such officer continues to discharge any of the duties of or hold the office, and whether such breaches are committed or suffered by the principal officer, his deputy, or clerk except that no officer of a county, city, or city and county, whose sole compensation by virtue of his office is a fixed salary established by the Legislature, the local governing body, or the board of supervisors, shall be personally liable for the negligent act or omission of any deputy or employee serving under him and performing the duties of his office, where the appointment or qualification of such deputy or employee is required to be and has been approved by the local governing body or the board of supervisors, or by the civil service commission, unless the officer failed to exercise due care in the selection, appointment or supervision of such deputy or employee, or negligently failed to suspend or secure the discharge of such deputy or employee after knowledge or notice of his inefficiency or incompetency, and except that no state officer shall be personally liable for the negligent act or omission of any deputy or employee serving under him and performing the duties of his office, where the appointment or qualification of such deputy or employee is required to be and has been approved by the State Personnel Board, unless such officer failed to exercise due care in the selection, appointment, or supervision of such deputy or employee, or negligently failed to suspend or secure the discharge of such deputy or employee after knowledge or notice of his inefficiency or incompetency.

Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as placing any liability upon the principal officer for the act of a deputy or employee unless such liability is otherwise imposed upon the principal officer by law, nor shall this section be construed or interpreted as releasing or relieving any such county, city, or city and county of any liability for the negligent act or omission of any such deputy or employee otherwise imposed by law.

(b) The faithful discharge of all duties which may be required of such officer by any law enacted subsequently to the execution of the bond.

17.p. West's Ann.Cal.Gov. Code (2002), § 1505 reads:

Whenever, except in criminal prosecutions, any special penalty, forfeiture, or liability is imposed on any officer of a county or judicial district for nonperformance or malperformance of official duties, the liability therefore attaches to the official bond of the officer, and to the principal and sureties thereon.

26.) Persons required to file Official Bonds.

18.a. West's Ann.Cal.Gov. Code (2002), § 1001 reads (emphasis added):

The civil executive officers are: a Governor; a private secretary and an executive secretary for the Governor; a Lieutenant Governor; A Secretary of State; a Deputy Secretary of State; a Keeper of Archives of Secretary of State; a bookkeeper for the Secretary of State; three recording clerks for the Secretary of State; a Controller; a Deputy Controller; a bookkeeper for the Controller; five clerks for the Controller; a Treasurer; a Deputy Treasurer; a bookkeeper for the Treasurer; a clerk for six months in each year for the Treasurer; an Attorney General and all assistant and deputy attorneys general; a Superintendent of Public Instruction; one clerk for the Superintendent of Public Instruction; an Insurance Commissioner; a deputy for the Insurance Commissioner; for [sic?] port wardens for the Port of San Francisco; a port warden for each port of entry except San Francisco; five State Harbor Commissioners for San Francisco Harbor; six pilots for each harbor where there is no board of pilot commissioners; three members of the Board of Pilot Commissioners for Humboldt Bay and Bar; 13 members of the State Board of Agriculture; four members of the State Board of Equalization; a clerk of the Board of Equalization; three members of the State Board of Education; a librarian for the Supreme Court Library and the chief deputy clerk and the deputy clerks of the Supreme Court; five directors for the insane asylum at Stockton; five directors for the insane asylum at Napa; the manager, assistant manager, chief counsel and division chiefs, State Compensation Insurance Fund; the head of each department and all chiefs of divisions, deputies and secretaries of a department; such other officers as fill offices created by or under the authority of charters or laws for the government of counties and cities or of the health, school, election, road, or revenue laws.

18.b. West's Ann.Cal.Gov. Code (2002), § 1458 reads:

The bonds of supervisors, treasurers, county clerks, auditors, sheriffs, tax collectors, district attorneys, recorders, assessors, surveyors, superintendents of schools, public administrators, coroners, and constables shall be approved by the presiding judge of the superior court before the bonds can be recorded and filed.

18.c. West's Ann.Cal.Gov. Code (2002), § 1457 reads: (emphasis added)

Unless otherwise provided, the official bonds of a county and judicial district shall be approved by the presiding judge of the superior court, recorded in the office of the county recorder, and then filed in the county clerk's office.

18.d. West's Ann.Cal.Gov. Code (2002), § 1461 reads:

Any person appointed to fill a vacancy shall give a bond, corresponding in substance and form with the bond required of the officer originally elected or appointed, before entering upon the duties of the office.

18.e. West's Ann.Cal.Gov. Code (2002), § 14625 reads (bracketed

The director [of the Department of General Services] may require any person who has charge of, handles or has access to any state property to file an official bond in an amount to be fixed by him.

18.f. West's Ann.Cal.Gov. Code (2002), § 11156 reads:

In addition to any bonds required by the Director of General Services the head of each department may require any officer or employee in his department to execute an official bond in such amount as he determines.

18.g. West's Ann.Cal.Gov. Code (2002), § 1480 reads:

Every officer, agent or employee not required by statute to give an official bond may be required to give an individual official bond, or other form of individual bond, in the amount fixed by the appointing power and such bond shall inure to the benefit of the appointing power, state, county, or municipality, by whom such officer, employee or agent is employed as well as the officer under whom the employee or agent serves.

The appointing power shall obtain the approval of the Department of General Services before requiring any state officer, employee, or agent to give an individual bond pursuant to this section, and before including the name or position or office of any such officer, employee, or agent in a master bond as provided in section 1481.

18.h. West's Ann.Cal.Gov. Code (2002), § 1481 reads (in part):

(a) When deemed expedient by the appointing power, a master official bond or other form of master bond may be used which shall provide coverage on more than one officer, employee, or agent who is required by the appointing power or the board of supervisors of a chartered or general law county to give bond.

27.) Mechanics of Filing Official Bonds:

19.a. West's Ann.Cal.Gov. Code (2002), § 1450 reads (emphasis added):

Unless otherwise provided, every official bond shall be filed in the proper office within the time prescribed for filing the oath.

19.b. West's Ann.Cal.Gov. Code (2002), § 1456 reads (emphasis added):

The official bond of the Secretary of State shall be filed in the office of the Treasurer after it is recorded.

19.c. West's Ann.Cal.Gov. Code (2002), § 1459 reads (emphasis added):

After being recorded, the official bond of the county clerk shall be filed in the office of the county treasurer.

19.d. West's Ann.Cal.Gov. Code (2002), § 1455 reads (emphasis added):

Unless otherwise provided, all official bonds of state officers and employees not expressly prescribed by law shall be forwarded to the Department of General Services for recordation. Upon such recordation the Department of General Services shall forward the bonds to the Secretary of State where they shall be filed.

19.e. West's Ann.Cal.Gov. Code (2002), § 1454 reads (emphasis added):

Unless otherwise provided, the official bonds of state officers prescribed by law shall be approved by either the Governor or the Director of General Services and filed and recorded in the office of the Secretary of State.

19.f. West's Ann.Cal.Gov. Code (2002), § 1451 reads:

The approval of every official bond shall be indorsed thereon and signed by the officer approving the bond.

19.g. West's Ann.Cal.Gov. Code (2002), § 1452 reads:

No officer with whom any official bond is required to be filed shall file such bond until approved.

19.h. West's Ann.Cal.Gov. Code (2002), § 1453 reads:

“Official bonds shall be recorded in a book kept for that purpose entitled "Record of Official Bonds."

28.) Penalty for failure to timely file Official Bonds:

20.a. West's Ann.Cal. Gov. Code (2002), § 1770 reads (in part, emphasis added):

An office becomes vacant on the happening of any of the following events before the expiration of the term:

(i) His or her refusal or neglect to file his or her required oath or bond within the time prescribed.

20.b. I reasonably infer that most purported State of California officers(s) must post and maintain an Official Bond during the term of their office(s).

I certify within the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true, correct, and complete.

Signature: __________________________________

At: _________________________________________

Dated: ______________________________________

The act providing for the application of the salaries of public officers to the payment of their debts Ruperich v. Bachr, 142 Cal. 190, 75 Pac. 782.

Section 710 of the CCP proving for the garnishment of the salaries of certain public officers at the instance of their judgment creditors Lawson v. Lawson, 158 Cal. 446, 111 Pac. 354.

An act providing for the payment by the state, county or city of the premium on official bonds of all state, county or city officers (except notaries public) when given by surety companies (County of San Luis Obispo v. Murphy, 162 Cal. 588, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 712, 123 Pac 808; County of San Luius Obispo v. Smith, 21 Cal. App. 55 130 Pac. 838.

20.c. Constitutional validity of requirement of bond as condition of access to courts if requirements permits fixing of bond in such amount as to discourage vexatious action but not to prevent or obstruct meritorious action. Damaskos v Board of Appeal (1971) 359 Mass 55, 267 NE2d 897. 1969 amendment to this section relates to the necessity for the filing of a bond in connection with writs of review and has no application to petitions to vacate judgments under §§ 17 and 18. Mancini v Columbus Auto Body, Inc. (1971) 359 Mass 586, 270 NE2d 399.

Whereas, BARACK OBAMA, et als, you have SEVENTY-TWO HOURS (3) days from the date of receipt of this document to answer each and every element of this WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO as you are COMMANDED TO DO by ORDER OF ‘WE THE PEOPLE’ in the relation of: by and through the lawful status and delegation of authority of David Allan Herndon who has legal standing as one of ‘we the people’ thereof, and to “show cause” with substantive and lawful proof in consonance with the Constitution of California 1849 that defendant BARACK OBAMA currently holds office lawfully, TO THE COMPLETE TERMS AND CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY LAW; and: THAT YOU HAVE OBEYED AND ARE IN CONSONANCE WITH ARTICLE II, Section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution for the United States 1787-1791 in accordance with law; or in the alternative, you must SUMMARILY AND IMMEDIATELY TAKE DEFENDANT BARACK OBAMA, et als, OFF THE 2008 ELECTION BALLOT and defendant must vacate his office immediately, without pay, and without further remuneration or benefits and be forever prohibited from serving in the public trust again, and pay damages to me.

“… the evidence which comes to us from England and elsewhere invites us to think of a time when law was weak, and its weakness was displayed by a ready recourse to outlawry. … he who defied it was outside its sphere; he was an outlaw. He who breaks it has gone to war with the community; and the community goes to war with him. It is the right and duty of every man to pursue him, to ravage his land, to burn his house, to hunt him down like a wild beast and slay him; for a wild beast he is; not merely is he a friendless man, he is a wolf. “History of English Law; Frederick Pollock & Frederic Maitland, (1899). Cambridge University Press, Volume 2, Pages 449 & 450.

VI – DAMAGES

WHEREAS, for good cause shown, any usurpation of any lawful delegation of authority by BARACK OBAMA, et als, in this matter, or that if this supreme court denies or ignores this QUO WARRANTO in any way, shape or form, then, RONALD M. GEORGE, et als, and the above named surrogate court(s) herein and OTHER concomitant state actors, state agencies, agents and assigns, hereby stipulates and agrees to the following ESTOPPEL terms and conditions:

WHEREAS, for good cause shown, as any usurpation of lawful delegation of authority by defendant BARACK OBAMA, et als, and/or his surrogate courts, has in fact, been stipulated by way of ESTOPPEL to accrue in the following damages in accordance with the following terms and conditions:

a.) You hereby agree and stipulate to be added to the California Government Code §§ 38, and 1027.5 criminal violation prosecution in the lower County of Butte ‘superior court’ and to bear the full burden both economically and criminally for not obeying the CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS under law for defendant BARACK OBAMA, et als, to lawfully produce his NATURAL BORN CITIZEN constitutional requirements in this matter; and,

b.) You hereby agree and stipulate to give up any and all claims to immunity; and,

c.) That you hereby agree and stipulate that you are precluded from making any future legal defense in this matter; and,

d.) That you hereby agree and stipulate to give up any and all TORTS CLAIMS ACTS, both state and federal; and,

e.) That you hereby agree and stipulate that you cannot take or assume or be allowed any public monies for your defense(s) for your violation of the public trust in this matter; and,

f.) That you hereby agree and stipulate to make immediate payment for damages upon any invoicing and/or billing that I may make upon you or your co-conspirators, agents and/or assigns for damages in this matter, which have been established on the record as of this date, as a prima facie case under law within any court or tribunal; or by any other means or instrumentality; and,

g.) That you hereby agree and stipulate to grant full legal power attorney to me and/or any of my assigns, to liquidate all your, or your agents, state agencies, state actors, or assigns, personal, private, individual, company or any other real or tangible assets or interests that you may have, to the custody of the plaintiff, or into the custody of the Federal Jurisdiction of a U.S. Marshall and/or any other agency acting in my interest that I may denominate; and,

h.) That you hereby agree and stipulate to immediately submit your public bond to me in its entirety, in accordance with “An Act Concerning the Official Bonds of Officers.” The People of the State of California, represented in Senate and Assembly do enact as follows—& etc., Approved February 28, 1850 or its Federal equivalent.

i.) That you and your assigns, hereby agree and stipulate to BE PROSECUTED TO THE FULL EXTENT OF THE LAW; and,

j.) That you hereby agree and stipulate to any and all GRAND JURY INVESTIGATIONS of this matter (both state and federal); and,

k.) That you hereby agree and stipulate to any and all LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT INVESTIGATIONS, both state and federal; and,

l.) That you hereby agree and stipulate to any and all EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT INVESTIGATIONS (both state and federal); and,

m.) That you hereby agree to be fully criminal and civilly liable in this matter, with both compensatory and punitive damages being awarded to THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA for treble damages; or whatever is greater; and,’

n.) That you hereby agree and stipulate that upon any finding of guilt, or wrong-doing, or malfeasance, that such finding precludes you from further government pay; and,

o.) That you hereby agree and stipulate that any finding of guilt, or wrong-doing, or malfeasance, that such finding precludes you from any and all government benefits and/or retirement; and,

p.) That you hereby agree and stipulate that any finding of guilt, or wrong-doing, or malfeasance in this matter, that such finding precludes you from ever working in the public trust again and that you agree to immediate resignation.

q.) That you hereby agree and stipulate to any other further remedy and/or relief that I may deem fair, reasonable and just

SEAL: Dated this October 31, 2008

VII — QUO WARRANTO

COMMAND OF QUO WARRANTO

[ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE]

THAT CHIEF JUSTICE RONALD M. GEORGE SITTING EN BANC WITH YOUR ASSOCIATE JUSTICES; YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTLY COMMANDED BY WE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO ENFORCE, DEFEND AND UPHOLD THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS WELL AS OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST BARACK OBAMA, et als, WHO IS IN VIOLATION OF THE CONCISE RULE OF LAW AS DEFINED WITHIN THE CONSTITUTION OF CALIFORNIA 1849, AND THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES 1787-1791, AND THAT UNDER YOUR JUDICIAL POWERS, THAT YOU ARE TO SUMMARILY MANDATE BARARCK OBAMA, A.K.A. “BARACK HUSSIEN OBAMA” & ETC., TO IMMEDIATELY PRODUCE IN WRITING, WITHIN SEVENTY-TWO HOURS (3) DAYS (OR AS SOON AS POSSIBLE BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA ELECTION OF 2008 ON NOVEMBER 4, 2008) UPON RECEIPT OF THIS DOCUMENT UPON YOUR PERSON AND/OR OFFICE AND/OR AGENTS, TO PRODUCE AND ANSWER THE FOLLOWING PARTICULARS THROUGHOUT THIS WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO:

1.) BY WHAT LAWFUL DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY DOES THE REGISTERED CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA, et als, APPLY AND RUN FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?

2.) BARACK OBAMA: YOU ARE HEREIN ORDERED TO IMMEDIATELY PRODUCE YOUR PROPER AND LAWFUL BONA FIDES, AND/OR REAL IDENTIFICATION TO MAKE APPLICATION FOR, AND TO RUN FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ON THE 2008 CALIFORNIA BALLOT.

3.) IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 5 OF THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES, DEFENDANT BARACK OBAMA, et als, IS HEREBY SUMMARILY ORDERED TO IMMEDIATELY PRODUCE HIS “CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH” FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII; AND,

4.) FURTHER, THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH AFORESAID ARTICLE AND SECTION, REGARDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CLAUSE CONSTITUITONAL REQUIREMENT; YOU ARE TO ALSO OBTAIN FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII, A CERTIFIED SWORN STATEMENT, SUBSCRIBED UNDER OATH, BEFORE A LAWFUL JUDGE WITHIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES THEREOF, A FORMAL STATEMENT OF TRUTH FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF HAWAII, [LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR JAMES R. AIONA JR.] SWEARING UNDER OATH THAT AFORESAID ‘CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH’ IS AN ORIGINAL TRUE AND CORRECT VAULT ORIGINAL DOCUMENT SHOWING BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, ET ALS, ET SEQ., BIRTH WITHIN THE LANDMASS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA THEREBY QUALIFYING HIM TO BE A CANDIDATE FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES UNDER ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 5 OF THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES 1787-1791; AND,

5.) FURTHER, THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH AFIRESAID ARTICLE AND SECTION, BUT NOT MERELY LIMITED THERETO, YOU DEFENDANT BARACK OBAMA, et als, ARE ALSO TO OBTAIN, ANY AND ALL CERTIFIED ORIGINAL “CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH” AND/OR “BIRTH CERTIFICATE” OR ANY OTHER SUCH DOCUMENT OR INSTRUMENTALITY FROM THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA, WHICH IS RECORDED, OR EVER HAS BEEN RECORDED IN YOUR NAME AND/OR ANY OTHER ALIAS OR MONIKER SHOWING IN FACT, ANY BIRTH UPON THE LANDMASS AND/OR TERRITORY OF THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA OF YOUR PERSON OR ENTITY.

6.) FURTHER, THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH AFORESAID ARTICLE AND SECTION, BUT NOT LIMITED THERETO, AND UNDER THE LAWS OF PERJURY WITHIN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THAT YOU, DEFENDANT BARACK OBAMA, et als, ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO IMMEDIATELY PRODUCE A CERTIFIED SWORN STATEMENT, SUBSCRIBED UNDER OATH, BEFORE A LAWFUL JUDGE SITTING UPON THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, AND ALSO BEFORE THIS SUPREME COURT WITHIN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, A FORMAL STATEMENT OF TRUTH SWEARING UNDER OATH THAT AFORESAID ‘CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH’ EXISTS IN THE STATE OF HAWAII, AND IS AN ORIGINAL TRUE AND CORRECT VAULT ORIGINAL DOCUMENT SHOWING BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, ET ALS, ET SEQ. & ETC., THAT YOU WERE IN FACT, BORN UPON THE LANDMASS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THEREBY, YOU ARE IN FACT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONSTITUITON OF THE UNITED STATES 1787-1791, ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 5; AND

7.) FURTHER, THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH AFORESAID ARTICLE AND SECTION, BUT NOT LIMITED THERETO, AND UNDER THE LAWS OF PERJURY WITHIN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THAT YOU, DEFENDANT BARACK OBAMA, et als, ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO IMMEDIATELY PRODUCE A CERTIFIED SWORN STATEMENT, SUBSCRIBED UNDER OATH, BEFORE A LAWFUL JUDGE SITTING UPON THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, AND ALSO BEFORE THIS SUPREME COURT WITHIN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, A FORMAL STATEMENT OF TRUTH SWEARING UNDER OATH, THAT YOU HAVE NOT EVER BEEN BORN WITHIN THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA, NOR ANY OTHER FOREIGN LAND OR TERRITORY, AND THEREBY ARE IN FACT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONSTITUITON OF THE UNITED STATES 1787-1791, ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 5; SO HELP YOU GOD.

8.) FURTHER, THAT BECAUSE OF DEFENDANTS INANE INSOLENCE AND MALFEASANCE AND OBFUSCATION UPON THIS MOST SOLEMN MATTER: THAT THIS COURT MANDATE THAT DEFENDANT BARACK OBAMA, et als, BEAR ANY AND ALL COSTS AND/OR COURT COST TO COMPLY WITH THIS WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO IN ITS ENTIRETY, FOR ANY AND CALL COURT COSTS, LEGAL COSTS, AND ANY OTHER ASSOCIATED COSTS OR CONTINUING COSTS, WHATSOEVER IN ORDER TO COMPLY UNDER THESE EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES; IN WHICH HE HIMSELF HAS FULMINATED AND CREATED.

YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED, ORDERED AND COMMANDED TO IMMEDIATELY MAKE FORMAL WRITTEN RESPONSE AND RETURN TO ANY AND ALL ITEMS AND ELEMENTS REQUESTED HEREIN WITHIN THIS COMMAND OF QUO WARRANTO, AND MAKE FORMAL WRITTEN RETURN TO ME IN WRITING, TO MY MAILING ADDRESS AT:

David Allan Herndon

P.O. BOX 1365

Paradise, California

YOU ARE TO DO SO WITHIN SEVENTY-TWO HOURS (3) DAYS OF SERVICE OF THIS DOCUMENT UPON YOU: BARACK OBAMA, et als, AND/OR YOUR AGENTS AND/OR ASSIGNS.

YOU ARE ALSO HEREBY FORMALLY NOTICED; THAT AS YOU ARE UNDER FORMAL CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CHARES IN THIS MATTER, THAT YOU ARE PRECLUDED FROM HOLDING GOVERNMENT OFFICE DURING THIS TIME PERIOD, AND MUST RENOUNCE AND BE DISCHARGED FROM ANY AND ALL GOVERNMENT OR PUBLIC TRUST JOB DUTIES UNTIL THIS MATTER IS COMPLETELY RESOLVED. FURTHER, THAT AS YOU ARE UNDER VERIFIED CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE §§ 38 AND 1027.5 (ACCRUING) CHARGES, YOU CANNOT SIT UPON ANY DEPARTMENT OFFICE AND/OR GOVERNMENT OFFICE WITHIN THE PUBLIC TRUST OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, OR OF THE UNITED STATES. YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO RETURN ANY AND/OR ALL PAY DURING THIS TIMEFRAME, NUNC PRO TUNC FROM AUGUST 21, 2008 UNTIL THIS MATTER IS COMPLETELY RESOLVED. YOU ARE TO FORFIET ANY AND ALL PAY, RETIREMENT BENEFITS, AND ARE TO BE SUSPENDED FROM ANY AND ALL GOVERNMENT JOB DUTIES, UNTIL THIS MATTER IS FULLY AND COMPLETELY RESOLVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTIONS BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL.

THAT IF THIS WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO IS DENIED IN ANY WAY, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, YOUR RELATOR AND PLAINTIFF David Allan Herndon HEREBY MAKES FORMAL DEMAND TO THIS COURT TO SUBMIT TO ME A WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DECISION, SHOWING FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IT USED TO DENY THIS WRIT EITHER IN WHOLE OR PART, IN WRITING, WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) DAYS OF ANY SUCH DENIAL; SHOWING WITH SUBSTANTCE, THE LAW AS WELL AS OF THE FACTS WHICH THEY USED WHICH ARE CONSONANT TO THE CONCISE RULE OF LAW AS DECLARED WITHIN THE CONSTITUTION OF CALIFORNIA 1849.

FURTHER, THAT THIS COURT IS TO REMIT TO ME ANY OTHER FURTHER REMEDY AND/OR RELIEF THAT IT DEEMS FAIR, NECESSARY AND JUST IN THIS MATTER.

YOUR RELATOR AND PETITIONER, David Allan Herndon THROWS HIMSELF UPON THE COUNTRY FOR SUBSTANTIVE REMEDY, JUSTICE AND/OR RELIEF.

FURTHER, AFFIANT SAITH NAUGHT.

DATED: October 31, 2008

VERIFICATION

Butte County ]

] ss.

State of California ]

I, David Allan Herndon, being the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury as follows:

That the afore-going Document(s), Affidavit(s), Declaration(s), and/or Materials, Id., including referenced and/or attached documents, and/or duplicates of such documents are exacting copies of the originals in my/or my counsel’s (specifically not American Bar Association, or professional “Attorney’s”) possession. That I have read the foregoing document(s) and attachments, and know and understand their contents, and having personal knowledge to the contents contained therein, I know them to be true. As to those matters submitted therein upon information and/or belief, as to those matters, I also believe them true.

Executed this October 31, 2008, in the Year of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ, year Two-Thousand-Eight.

DATED: October 31, 2008

SUBSCRIPTION

Subscribed this October 31, 2008, under exigent circumstances, before Almighty God, in the Year of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ, year Two-Thousand-Eight.

SEAL:

Jurat

State of California ]

] SS.

County of Butte ]

On this date of October 30, 2008, before me, _________________________ Notary Public, personally appeared David Allan Herndon personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

______________________________

Notary’s signature

______________________________

David Allan Herndon- Signature

DATED: October 30, 2008

PLACE NOTARY SEAL IN ABOVE SPACE

—————————– OPTIONAL INFORMATION —————————-

The information below is optional. However, it may prove valuable and could prevent fraudulent attachment of this form to an unauthorized document.

CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER (PRINCIPAL)

_____________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________ DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT

_______________________________

TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT

__________________________________________

NUMBER OF PAGES

__________________________________________

DATE OF DOCUMENT

__________________________________________

OTHER

SIGNER (PRINCIPAL) IS REPRESENTING:

Name of persons or entity(ies):

______________________________________________

______________________________________________

RIGHT

THUMBPRINT

OF

SIGNER

SUPREME COURT

David Allan Herndon,

Appellant/Plaintiff

against,

BARACK OBAMA, et als,, Defendant/Respondent’s

Case No.

RE: USDC E.D.Pa. No. 08-4083

CERTIFICATION/AFFIDAVIT

OF PROOF OF SERVICE

[CCP §§ 1013 AND 2015.5]

I, the undersigned hereby certify and declare that I am over the age of 18 years, and not a party to the within entitled cause of action; and, Further, hereby deposes and says: that on the date signed below, I did serve UNDER AUTHORITY OF APPELLANT/PETITIONER the attached document named:

1.) QUO WARRANTO AGAINST BARACK OBAMA, et als, 62 Pages

TYPE The aforesaid documents were served in the following manner:

A

B

C

D

E

F By PERSONAL HAND DELIVERED service TO THE PARTY. I did personally deliver the above-described documents at the address, or addresses captioned below:

By GENERAL DELIVERY of the U.S. Postal Service having knowledge of the United States Mail Postpaid SEALED envelope, sealed by my hand at PARADISE, CALIFORNIA

By REGISTERED MAIL Number RR US

By phone communication transmission [FAX], the material aforementioned on-line was sent at a total of ______ transmitted pages to Tel.#( )

By THIRD PARTY/COMPANY delivery service:

OTHER: Notice to the Principal is NOTICE to the Agent, NOTICE to the Agent is Notice to the Principal. [C.C. § 2332]

RONALD M. GEORGE

SUPREME COURT

350 McAllister Street

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102-4797

415-865-7000

TYPE A-HAND DELIVERED

October 31, 2008

CLERK OF THE COURT

FRITZ K. OHLRICH

350 McAllister Street

SAN FRANCISCO,

CALIFORNIA 94102-4797

530-538-7611

TYPE A-HAND DELIVERED

October 31, 2008

BARACK OBAMA, et als,

P.O. Box 8102

Chicago, Illinois 60680

TYPE B—GEN. MAIL

October 31, 2008

Philip J. Berg, Esquire [09867]

555 Andorra Glen Court, STE 12

Lafayette Hill, PA. 19444-2531

(610) 825-3134

TYPE F-E-MAIL

October 31, 2008

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

State Capitol Building

Sacramento, CA. 95814

Tel. 916-445-2841

Fax. 916-445-4633

TYPE A-HAND DELIVERED

October 31, 2008

Office of the Attorney General

EDMUND G. BROWN JR.

455 Golden Gate, Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA. 94102-7004

415-703-5500

TYPE A-HAND DELIVERED

October 31, 2008

John P. Lavelle, Jr. [PA54279]

BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL, LLP

1735 Market St., 51st FL.

Philadelphia, PA. 19103

Tel. 215-864-8603

Fax. 215-864-9125

lavellej@ballardspahr.com

TYPE F—E-MAIL

October 31, 2008

Joseph E. Sandler

SANDLER REIFF & YOUNG PC

300 M Street, S.E. STE 1102

Washington, D.C. 20003

Tel. 202-479-1111

Fax. 202-479-1115

info@sandlerreiff.com

TYPE F-E-MAIL

October 31, 2008

Robert F. Bauer

Gen. Counsel, Obama for America

PERKINS COIE

607 Fourteenth St., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005-2003

Tel. 202-628-6600

Fax. 202-434-1690

Rbauer@perkinscoie.com

TYPE F-E-MAIL

October 31, 2008

SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

One Post Street, STE 2450

San Francisco, CA. 94104

Tel. 415-393-0707

Fax. 415-393-0710

TYPE A-HAND DELIVERED

October 31, 2008

Federal Election Commission

999 E. Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20463

Tel. 800-424-9530

Fax. 202-219-3336

TYPE B – GEN. MAIL

October 31, 2008

CALIFORNIA Secretary of State

DEBRA BOWEN

1500 11th Street

Sacramento, California 95814

Tel: 916-653-6814

TYPE A-HAND DELIVERED

October 31, 2008

California Secretary of State

KATHY MITCHELL

Election Division

1500 11th Street , 5TH Floor

Sacramento, California 95814

Tel: 916-657-2166

Fax: 916-653-3214

Email: elections@sos.ca.gov

TYPE A-HAND DELIVERED

October 31, 2008

NANCY PALOSI

450 Golden Gate Ave., 14th Floor

San Francisco, CA. 94102

Tel. 415-556-4862

TYPE A-HAND DELIVERED

October 31, 2008

BARBARA BOXER

501 I Street, Suite 7-600

Sacramento, CA 95814

Tel. (916) 448-2787

Fax: (916) 448-2563 fax

TYPE A-HAND DELIVERED

October 31, 2008

California Democratic Party

1401 21st Street, STE 200

Sacramento, CA. 95811

Tel. 916-442-5707

Fax: 916-442-5715

Attn: ART TORRES

TYPE A-HAND DELIVERED

October 31, 2008

KAREN BASS

SPEAKER OF THE ASSEMBLY

P.O. Box 942849

Sacramento, CA. 942849

Tel. 916-319-2047

Fax. 916-319-2147

TYPE A-HAND DELIVERED

October 31, 2008

David Allan Herndon

P.O. BOX 1365

Paradise, California [EXEMPT]

TYPE A-HAND DELIVERED

October 31, 2008

Further, I declare under penalty of perjury knowing the laws thereof within the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that these documents were served by me personally as stated above and/or mailed and sealed as stated above within the California Republic.

DATED: October 31, 2008 ~3:30PM Gavin Wilson by Lawful Service

Gavin Wilson for:

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply